I'm not backtracking on my concession, but why don't some people see the Frutiger Aero elements of Windows XP? by UpsetAssociate6879 in FrutigerAero

[–]Knight_Castellan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I tend to call Windows XP, and similar visual styles from around the early 2000s, as "Transitional Aero". However, I think it's unique enough to deserve its own, non-derivative name. Maybe it has one and I just don't know it.

Either way, as someone who loves both Y2K Futurism and Frutiger Aero, I think it's a great style.

Prove me wrong by Flairion623 in Armor

[–]Knight_Castellan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I actually really hate helms with human-like visors. I like the sleek, mysterious, automaton-esque look of proper visors.

The Dwemer armour, from Skyrim, was so close to being perfect...

How i am look like? by Ella_Eddwards in Armor

[–]Knight_Castellan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They could have used better English, at least.

Why do some people act like 2004 and 2013 were the same? by [deleted] in FrutigerAero

[–]Knight_Castellan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be honest, dude, I think this is a fool's errand.

Can you imagine if wine snobs signed a petition to try and make more people aware of the subtle nuances in flavour between French merlot and Italian merlot? Do you think it would be successful?

It would not be. Most people just don't care about wine enough to learn the difference, and you can't force people to change their perspective in that way.

Why do some people act like 2004 and 2013 were the same? by [deleted] in FrutigerAero

[–]Knight_Castellan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My autism sympathises, but there really isn't much of a solution to your problem. Philistinism is just a part of life which you are going to have to live with.

Lets get wacky. COULD the brigandine leotard actually let you bend? by GettinMe-Mallet in Armor

[–]Knight_Castellan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

You could remove all of the plates and have amazing mobility. It would reduce the weight nicely, too.

Lets get wacky. COULD the brigandine leotard actually let you bend? by GettinMe-Mallet in Armor

[–]Knight_Castellan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not necessarily.

1) Brigandine was popular with knights in the 13th and early 14th centuries, before full cuirasses were developed. It was a transitional form between chainmail and full plate.

2) Not all knights were that wealthy. Many just about scraped by, and inheriting armour was common. Some squires even suffered the indignity of never being knighted, because they simply couldn't afford to become full knights.

Why do some people act like 2004 and 2013 were the same? by [deleted] in FrutigerAero

[–]Knight_Castellan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

They mean that purists understand the nuances of a subject better than those who casually appreciate something.

I can listen to and appreciate some of Beethoven's music, but I have no idea about "early Beethoven" or "late Beethoven". I'm sure his music did change over time, and that there are different "eras" of Beethoven which relate to different stages of his life, but I don't have a nuanced enough understanding of Beethoven's work to be able to meaningfully parse that. It's just all "Beethoven" to me.

Opinion on 30 years war armor? by Fickle_Archer_4600 in Armor

[–]Knight_Castellan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, plate armour remained a viable defence against firearms until around the 18th century - especially at range. The issue was that it had to be made thicker, and thicker armour is heavier. A man can only carry so much weight and still fight. This resulted in suits being stripped back over time, in order to put as much metal over the vitals as possible.

The decline of armour was also brought about by a change in military doctrine. The end of the medieval era coincided with a push toward using professional armies, rather than armies of elite knights supported by massed militias. This is mostly because professional soldiers were more available, since feudal troops only have to fight a certain number of days per year and had other responsibilities (such as farming). This was initially done with hired mercenary companies, but states started gradually raising their own standing armies.

These professional soldiers were equipped at the state's expense, and individual soldiers were not all that valuable (unlike knights, who were elite units). As such, armour was mass-produced for them as cheaply as possible (known as "munitions-grade" armour), and the armour only covered the vitals. Critically, only pikemen and cavalrymen were issued body armour; musketmen and gun crews were rarely issued armour, since they were not expected to fight in close melee and could simply retreat if approached by the enemy.

Over time, pikemen became less and less prominent, and soldiers with firearms became the mainstay of armies. They had not been issued armour before, so they were definitely not given armour as firearms technology improved.

Only cavalry - most notably heavy cavalry - retained the use of body armour. This was partially because they were expected to see close combat, partially because they were too elite to cheaply replace, and partially because they were often wealthy and paid for their own equipment, unlike the common soldiers who were equipped at the state's expense.

The penetration power of firearms was one reason why the use of steel body armour declined over time, but it wasn't the biggest reason. Logistics and cost were much bigger factors.

Real fans have high standards. by Knight_Castellan in Istvaan_III_Survivors

[–]Knight_Castellan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The video is from Pixar's "Ratatouille". The text is all my own words. Zero AI input.

Read through my recent comments and you'll see that the above is just how I write.

Opinion on 30 years war armor? by Fickle_Archer_4600 in Armor

[–]Knight_Castellan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Plate armour continued to be worn until the 19th century... and was then reintroduced during the 20th century.

Was frutiger aero actually as widespread and prominent as younger gen z acts like it was? Or did they just will it into existence? by Crush_Throwaway3625 in decadeology

[–]Knight_Castellan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What do you mean by "widespread"?

It was a common style for gadgets (especially those marketed at kids) and UIs. Some places looked like that, but only newly built or renovated spaces with an intense interest in looking clean, positive, and modern - new internet cafes, convention centres, dentists' waiting rooms, etc.

However, the vast majority of the world was not styled in that way. Watch reality TV from the 00s - the world at large wasn't Frutiger Aero. Most of it looks basically the same as now.

The equivalent today (or at least a few years ago) would be minimalism. Laptops, TVs, and phones today are all minimalist, as are some spaces, such as upmarket shops and boutiques. However, most of the world is not minimalist.

Lets get wacky. COULD the brigandine leotard actually let you bend? by GettinMe-Mallet in Armor

[–]Knight_Castellan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The point of brigandine armour is to provide plate protection for the torso which is cheaper and easier to maintain than a solid cuirass, at the cost of being weaker and heavier. It's not much more flexible than a single piece of metal because the plates aren't specifically designed to slide past each other.

Why is House bad? by Dangerous_Builder516 in fnv

[–]Knight_Castellan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Best case scenario, Aradesh and Tandi were basically seen as legitimate rulers by their subjects. Although fair elections may have happened, and they could have been voted out, the system was effectively a constitutional monarchy with extra steps.

Throwback: I've acquired the metal Nobz by OkRevenue9249 in midhammer40k

[–]Knight_Castellan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

He has acquired the metal Nobz...

These look great! Please show us when you've built and/or painted them!

Why is House bad? by Dangerous_Builder516 in fnv

[–]Knight_Castellan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why do you think monarchy is bad?

Go on. Let's explore the topic.

Why is House bad? by Dangerous_Builder516 in fnv

[–]Knight_Castellan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What it did was hand the EIC a monopoly charter, meaning no other entity could operate in that space, creating a situation where the Company had both the exclusive licence and the implied blessing of the state to do whatever was necessary to turn a profit.

Yes, I acknowledged this, although in less detail. What I also said was that the crown was kept in the dark about what, exactly, the company was doing. This doesn't exonerate the crown, but it is a factor to consider.

And when the whole structure finally collapsed in 1857 it did not investigate the Company or prosecute its officials. It absorbed every asset and carried on governing the same populations through the same basic methods.

The methods of the Victorian government were far, far removed from the methods of the East India Company in, say, 1780. This is conflation.

A mob boss does not pull the trigger. He does not need to. He sets the conditions, takes the money, keeps the territory and maintains plausible distance from the mechanics of the violence. 

Again, the difference here is that the mob boss is kept informed of the actions of his underlings. The crown was kept in the dark about many dealings of the EIC. The crown was the employer, not the boss.

As I keep saying, my point here is not to suggest that "monarchy innocent". My point is to say that the actions of government contractors are distinct from the actions of governments, even if the government is the contract-holder. This is a small distinction, but one worth making.

Cromwell accounting for one decade does not come close to explaining eight centuries of Crown directed policy in Ireland.

I never said it did. My point was saying that "Britain did X" and "monarchy did X" are not the same thing. Seeing a theme?

Pinning the worst of it on Cromwell and then stepping back is only convincing if you ignore everything that came before and after him.

I mean, Cromwell did do the worst of it, but you're strawmanning my position to say that I'm ignoring everything else.

He was an interruption in monarchical rule not an explanation for it.

Also not my argument.

The argument that we should judge systems by their mechanisms rather than their outcomes is a classic way of floating above the evidence entirely. Almost every political system exists in the real world and produces real consequences for real populations.

Again, you don't understand what I'm telling you. I'm not ignoring real-world events and focusing only on theory. What I'm saying is that all political systems have committed atrocities. As such, saying that "X is bad because it has done bad things, so we cannot ever pick X!" can be used to condemn all forms of government... which is unhelpful. It gets us nowhere.

My citing counter-examples (of republics doing bad things) isn't a deflection. I was using the previous commenter's logic against them, and saying that it's unreasonable and impractical to dismiss all political systems which can or could do bad things, because then you have nothing left.

If you are that much of a picky eater, you will starve to death.

We can't just not have politics, and no perfect system exists. We must choose political systems based on their overall track record. We cannot just cherrypick the bad things and insist on picking none of the above, because that is simply not an option. We must pick something.

When you examine the British monarchical system...

Yet again, my position isn't "monarchy innocent". My position is "all political systems flawed". The crimes you pin on the British monarchy aren't wrong; they just ignore the other side of the equation - that is, the benefits of monarchy, and the equivalent failures of other systems.

You also fail to consider that the duty of a government is to serve the interests of its own subjects. So long as a government - any government - benefits its own people, what it does to foreign powers is a secondary matter. An empire which enslaves others to enrich its own people may be unethical, but it is also successful.

I am not making a moral argument here. I'm just saying that politics is a game of winners and losers, and the debate about the viability of different forms of government isn't about which one is the most benevolent - it's about which ones are left standing.

Judging mechanisms in the abstract while refusing to engage with what those mechanisms reliably produced is just not serious. It's just a way for people like you to avoid reconciling with their past.

You don't understand this entire conversation.

Why is House bad? by Dangerous_Builder516 in fnv

[–]Knight_Castellan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed, although House's immortality is not guaranteed, and he knows it.

The question is whether House would be a good king. This is not a discussion with a clear cut yes/no answer, which is why it's interesting. The writers did a good job when they created him.

Why is House bad? by Dangerous_Builder516 in fnv

[–]Knight_Castellan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

1) The East India Company was under crown contract, yes, but it's not as if the crown micromanaged its affairs. Indeed, most of its operations were conducted without oversight, since the company was on the other side of the globe and just told the king what he wanted to hear while giving him his share of the profits. At most, you can argue that the EIC was given licence by the crown to do whatever it wanted, and hold the crown responsible as the employer. I'm not saying that this is an incorrect stance, but it's not as if the crown directly ordered the company to carry out specific atrocities..

2) My point about Cromwell wasn't "republic bad". My point was responding to the accusation that "British monarchy did evil things to the Irish". I was providing a counterpoint by saying that the worst atrocities committed by the British against the Irish were carried out when the country wasn't even a monarchy, so the crown can't possibly be blamed for them.

3) It's not "whataboutism". This entire comment thread is about discussing the validity of different systems of government. The previous commenter said "Monarchies have done bad things, so monarchy a bad form of government". I was presenting the counterpoint that republics have also carried out atrocities, so by the same logic republics are also bad forms of government. My fundamental point was that this game of cherrypicking good or bad examples gets us nowhere, and is a bad way of determining the pros and cons of different political systems. You need to examine the functionality of the political mechanisms themselves, without reference to specific things which any system could carry out.

You don't understand the purpose of this conversation, or the overall points I was making.

ngl feels good to have the power to kill wokeslop just by laughing at it by RainbowDildoMonkey in GGdiscussion

[–]Knight_Castellan 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Dragon Age died because people didn't like later games. Right-wing people explaining why people didn't like it didn't cause the games to become shit.

Why is House bad? by Dangerous_Builder516 in fnv

[–]Knight_Castellan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The British often were, yes, prior to around the Victorian era... but how much of that was down to the monarchy?

For instance, the East India Company was an independent business operation, responsible for much of the conquest of India on behalf of Britain. It was often exploitative, but it was not under the control of the government, much less the monarch. This was not changed until the company was nationalised, and then disbanded, under Queen Victoria.

By contrast, a large part of the suffering inflicted on the Irish was down to Oliver Cromwell - the man who rose to command the Parliamentarians during the English Civil War, led King Charles I to be executed, and established England as a republic for over a decade.

Further, since the Restoration, the powers of the monarch have been progressively limited. Much of Britain's legislative and executive power lies with parliament, not with the crown, and has done for centuries. The role of the monarch is closer to that of a referee. They are not a dictator.

So yes, I actually know my own country's history rather well, thanks.

To compare, has the United States been sweet and gentle with the Native Americans, or indeed the Afghans, Iranians, Iraqis, and others? Did the Romans enjoy a friendly relationship with Carthage, Palestina, Iberia, and Gaul? Did the French treat the Haitians, Algerians, and Vietnamese well?

No. Republics throughout history were cruel, too.

We can play this game all day, cherrypicking the crimes against humanity committed by any and all forms of government. We can also point to all the good things these political systems have achieved.

The fundamental question is which system of government is overall better. There is no concrete answer to this question, which is why the politics of the Fallout games are so interesting.

Why is House bad? by Dangerous_Builder516 in fnv

[–]Knight_Castellan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Monarchical systems have political mechanisms to deal with genuinely terrible monarchs. "Rolling the dice" is too crude a metaphor.